G v R [2026] EWFC 88 (B)

Tom Gilchrist represented the successful respondent in an application for non-molestation and occupation orders. The court listed a jurisdiction hearing to determine if, at their highest, the applicant’s claims could sustain the applications. The most significant issue was whether the property in the respondent’s name was occupied by the parties, or if the parties intended to occupy it as their home. 

The court dismissed the non-molestation order application for lack of evidence. The court also dismissed the occupation order as it accepted the respondent’s evidence that, while he was the legal owner of the property, it was held on trust for his brother. The court agreed that the property was never intended as a home for the parties. The applicant also failed to justify the requirements of section 33(6) of the Family Law Act 1996. Therefore, the occupation order application was dismissed.

Despite the applicant being legally aided, a costs order was still made against her due to her conduct in the proceedings and how she pursued her application. 

G v R [2026] EWFC 88 (B) judgment

22nd Jul 2026

Tom Gilchrist

Call 2018 (2016 - New Zealand)